Bill supporters warn about Islamic law in Montana

Some claimed Sharia law, or Islamic legal code, posed a threat to Americans during the Feb. 6 Montana Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. There was no committee discussion on the bill. Committee chairman Scott Sales set executive action on the bill for Feb. 10.

Senate Bill 199, introduced by Sen. Janna Taylor, R-Dayton, would nullify any “court, arbitration or administrative agency ruling” that relies on any foreign law contrary to rights guaranteed to Montanans by the Montana or U.S. constitutions.

Taylor said her bill would particularly protect the rights of women and children, who do not necessarily receive the same protections under other legal systems that they do in the United States. Exceptions were provided in the bill for business contracts and tribal court proceedings.

Taylor cited a case in which a Muslim man living with his wife in Michigan obtained a divorce in India without his wife’s knowledge. Under Sharia law used in India, the wife was only granted property that she had brought into the marriage, Taylor said. A Michigan court upheld the Sharia court’s decision until the case was successfully appealed by his wife.

“She had no prior notice, no pronouncement, no right to be represented, no right to a lawyer and no right to be present for a hearing,” Taylor said.

Taylor said Sharia law has been used to decide at least 50 cases in 23 states. Tennessee, Louisiana and Kansas had passed similar laws, Taylor said, with several states in the South and Midwest poised to do the same. She also warned about the United Nations as a potential source of legal problems in Montana courts.

Despite the insistence by Taylor and many of the speakers that the bill is not aimed at any specific group, several public comments made at the hearing characterized Islam in strong terms.

 “Emboldened by American weakness in the international arena … they are using the rights guaranteed under our Constitution to push their form of law as a religious right,” Davida Constant said. “This seventh-century, Middle Eastern, barbaric Islamic tribal practice … is now a threat to the civilized world.”

Tom Osborn of Kalispell referred to a case in which a man in New Jersey was acquitted after beating and raping his wife, with the court deferring to its permissibility under Sharia law. Osborn said ultimately an appellate court overturned the case.

“My concern is based on an awareness of the price we’ve paid to secure the freedoms that we have, that are enshrined in our Constitution and in our Bill of Rights,” he said. “It’s just unconscionable that we would allow any law, and in particular Sharia law, to violate the integrity of our rights and our country.”

A representative of the Montana Human Rights Network was the only speaker to oppose the bill. Rachel Carroll Rivas noted that the bill is modeled after legislation developed by the American Public Policy Alliance called “American Laws for American Courts.”

“While this model is sold merely as a recommitment to upholding our constitutional rights, this model legislation is intended to indeed take on Sharia law,” she said, calling it “an effort to spread an alarmist message about Islam and to keep Muslims in the U.S. on the margins.”

Carroll Rivas also noted that the first version of the bill had explicitly targeted Sharia law and was struck down by a court after four months as law.

More than a dozen speakers from the Flathead Valley showed up in Helena to support a bill that would restrict the use of foreign laws in Montana courts.

Some claimed Sharia law, or Islamic legal code, posed a threat to Americans during the Feb. 6 Montana Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. There was no committee discussion on the bill. Committee chairman Scott Sales set executive action on the bill for Feb. 10.

Senate Bill 199, introduced by Sen. Janna Taylor, R-Dayton, would nullify any “court, arbitration or administrative agency ruling” that relies on any foreign law contrary to rights guaranteed to Montanans by the Montana or U.S. constitutions.

Taylor said her bill would particularly protect the rights of women and children, who do not necessarily receive the same protections under other legal systems that they do in the United States. Exceptions were provided in the bill for business contracts and tribal court proceedings.

Taylor cited a case in which a Muslim man living with his wife in Michigan obtained a divorce in India without his wife’s knowledge. Under Sharia law used in India, the wife was only granted property that she had brought into the marriage, Taylor said. A Michigan court upheld the Sharia court’s decision until the case was successfully appealed by his wife.

“She had no prior notice, no pronouncement, no right to be represented, no right to a lawyer and no right to be present for a hearing,” Taylor said.

Taylor said Sharia law has been used to decide at least 50 cases in 23 states. Tennessee, Louisiana and Kansas had passed similar laws, Taylor said, with several states in the South and Midwest poised to do the same. She also warned about the United Nations as a potential source of legal problems in Montana courts.

Despite the insistence by Taylor and many of the speakers that the bill is not aimed at any specific group, several public comments made at the hearing characterized Islam in strong terms.

 “Emboldened by American weakness in the international arena … they are using the rights guaranteed under our Constitution to push their form of law as a religious right,” Davida Constant said. “This seventh-century, Middle Eastern, barbaric Islamic tribal practice … is now a threat to the civilized world.”

Tom Osborn of Kalispell referred to a case in which a man in New Jersey was acquitted after beating and raping his wife, with the court deferring to its permissibility under Sharia law. Osborn said ultimately an appellate court overturned the case.

“My concern is based on an awareness of the price we’ve paid to secure the freedoms that we have, that are enshrined in our Constitution and in our Bill of Rights,” he said. “It’s just unconscionable that we would allow any law, and in particular Sharia law, to violate the integrity of our rights and our country.”

A representative of the Montana Human Rights Network was the only speaker to oppose the bill. Rachel Carroll Rivas noted that the bill is modeled after legislation developed by the American Public Policy Alliance called “American Laws for American Courts.”

“While this model is sold merely as a recommitment to upholding our constitutional rights, this model legislation is intended to indeed take on Sharia law,” she said, calling it “an effort to spread an alarmist message about Islam and to keep Muslims in the U.S. on the margins.”

Carroll Rivas also noted that the first version of the bill had explicitly targeted Sharia law and was struck down by a court after four months as law.